Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:43:21 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 15:31:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 06, 2002 at 14:25:43, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 06, 2002 at 09:10:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On June 05, 2002 at 00:05:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>Since they are different hardware setups or different program versions, >>>>they are treated as different organisms. >>> >>>Now we can make a few conclusions. Here is one of the most important. We have a >>>principal difference between human chessplayers and machines. Next. We have a >>>principal difference between the generations of chess machines. >>> >>>I could already stop here, because from the above it is crystal clear that Dann >>>Corbit's explanations are a vain attempt. Because normal distribution is for >>>different individuals of the same organisms or "race". But - the different >>>generations of chess machines are different organisms. Completely new "limbs" or >>>"heads" are existing in newer generations. Hence you can't put them into the >>>same population for a normal distribution. Chess strength in human chessplayers >>>however is differentiated by degrees of strength between the weakest players to >>>the best. But there is no principal difference as far as the organism is >>>concerned. Period. Thank you. >> >>When someone takes measurements of bunnies in a field or crocodiles in a river >>or bears in the woods, they are talking about different organisms. >> >>I am afraid that mathematics and statistics are not your strong suit. >> >>You don't understand the math, the background, the methodology. Quite frankly, >>you have no idea what you are talking about. > >Well, I won't debate about such ad hominems. If you think that you could vary >the different machines on different hardware and with completely different >"parts" like "learning" yes or no, and still get a reasonable normal >distribution for strength resp. performance, then fine, do what you must do, you >have the right to talk about my knowledge in whatever style you prefer, and that >is what makes the debate with you so interesting and 'telling' BTW. I have said nothing about you. I have described your lack of understanding about statistics. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about something. Will Rogers said it best: "Everyone is ignorant. Only in different areas." An Ad-hominem attack is an attack against the person and (more specifically) against their character. I have made no such attack.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.